2-handed pistol grip in Ostfront?
- Thread starter Cleft_Asunder
- Start date
BicycleRepairMan said:
Do you really think so ? Of course, the bigger the calibre, the heavier is the recoil. BUT! I think everybody who has ever shot with a pistol or a revolver knows, that to hit a target, which is 10...30m away, it is much more difficult to hit it onehanded. therefore u need many training-hours.... indeed
to execute sb. - of course you wont need to hands...
I don't think someone would revert to two handed grip (especially if they've never done it) over their training. That's the point of training, to make you do something a certain way. Training must at some point overcome fear, otherwise nobody would ever get out of a foxhole or trench or ever put themselves in harms way.
Besides, I believe the one handed shooting method was to position your body perpendicular to the target, decreasing your owns silhouette, and shooting over your right (or left) shoulder. You could believe that standing sideways to your opponent like this can save your life since you present a smaller target area.
Besides, I believe the one handed shooting method was to position your body perpendicular to the target, decreasing your owns silhouette, and shooting over your right (or left) shoulder. You could believe that standing sideways to your opponent like this can save your life since you present a smaller target area.
[-project.sturm-] said:
However, all sides in the war specifically taught their troops NOT to engage long-range targets with their pistols. In cases where officers might have to actually shoot the enemy on a regular basis, they were issued rifles or smgs (or acquired them) to go after targets beyond 10m. They were only issued pistols for close combat defense, in case their headquarters was overrun. In that case, being able to fire quickly one-handed would be an advantage, as there wouldn't be much time to aim.
Mormegil said:
lol, you stand on the battlefield or what ?!
if I were in our shoes, I would look for cover and place aimed shots
but of course it could be, that komandir'S shot in that way...depends on the situation anyhow, i think.
[-project.sturm-] said:lol, you stand on the battlefield or what ?!
if I were in our shoes, I would look for cover and place aimed shots
but of course it could be, that komandir'S shot in that way...depends on the situation anyhow, i think.
Good point. But if your using your pistol, there's a good chance you're not prone.
Do you often pull out your pistol, and crawl around the battlefield in RO? Usually you'd have your rifle or SMG. In RO the pistol is the "Oh sh*t!" weapon. I usually use it in conjunction with running away. I find it a lot harder to run away when prone.
as an mger, I use my pistol a lot. if someone is at a point where I need more stability in my pistol shot, I just bring out my mg and deploy.
The pistol in this era (correct me if im way off) was view as a purely defensive weapon due to the tactics of the time. Using a pistol in actual combat (not when advancing under little to no fire) was a death wish.
yes, I'm also in this opinion.
but do not underestimate the pistol. it has saved my life for several times.
but do not underestimate the pistol. it has saved my life for several times.
I might just be strange, but when i shoot pistols I can shoot pretty darn accurate one-handed(and in many cases I shoot better one-handed then with both hands) I dont know why but in any case i still try to shoot most of the time with two hands, but if the target is at a great distance I would most like shoot one-handed. It also depends on the type of pistol, some feel right with 2 hands and some feel right with just one.
Shooting with two hands does make you more accurate, depending on the style.
What Bicycle Repaiman was referring to earlier in CQB is called "weapon's retention," but that is not quite the same thing. You see, soldiers are taught now to hold their pistols clost to their chest for retaining them (i.e. keeping them from being grabbed by an enemy or hysterical bystander) in close quarters, but when they actually need to take a shot, they are taught to extend their arms outward to full length, so really you end up with your gun out there just as much as with one hand, as far as retention is concerned.
Now, as for actualy accuracy, the two handed "instinctive shooting" style has suposedly been found to reduce trembling due to stress and the fact that in combat, you are probably breathing hard, etc. Also, it places the weapon right in front of your eyes, to you have a straight and simple aim point, and many times this stance is taught with the idea that you aim *over* the sights of the weapon, focusing on the target more than on the sight picture.
Finally, it is better because you don't turn you body to one side, but stand with your legs shoulder width apart, knees flexed, and shoulders slightly "hunched," all of this is also suppossed to decrease the effects of trembling and improve balance. This type of shooting has only been developed since the late 70s and early 80s, and even then only SWAT/HRT style operatives used it. Only in the last few years has the standard GI been taught to shoot like this.
As far as WWII is concerned, I agree with the people that say that a soldier will not really shoot far outside how he was taught: training makes people revert back on what they learned through repetition, in combat this repetition is all that a solider has. Also, I disagree with the people that think soldier's would have adopted two-handed, Weaver style stances instinctively because it is "better." Why do you ask? Well consider a modern conflict:
In Iraq, I have seen tons of pictures lately of guys running around holding their M16s with their supporting hand on the *magazine well*, yes you heard me, the friggin magazine well.
Now why is this bad? For one, a full length rifle like the A2 or A3 is *always* going to shoot better by holding it properly with the supporting hand on the forearm--they are are not SMGs or MPs where you are supposed to hold them around the magazine. This throws off you center of balance on the weapon, causing your barrel to "droop" more, and it is a lot easier for someone to grab the end of the rifle and pull the weapon away from you (once again the idea of weapon's retention).
However, the biggest thing that hits me when I see those pictues, is the idea that those guys are all two secons away from having their magazines drop out. If anyone has held an M16 (I own a CAR 15 myself), then you know that the mag release catch is right there on the side of the well. Basically, if you wrap your hand around the well likes its a grip, you are just asking for your fingers or palm (depending on if you are left or right handed) to hit hte mag release---this is ieven more likely if you have a tight grip under anxiety.
In summation, that is about the WORST way you can carry an M16 in a combat environment, but you see soldiers doing it all over TV and in pictures. So, do men really do what is "better" or more accurate? No. But, do they do what they were trained by some yokel DI or what "looks sexy," yes they do, apparently.
What Bicycle Repaiman was referring to earlier in CQB is called "weapon's retention," but that is not quite the same thing. You see, soldiers are taught now to hold their pistols clost to their chest for retaining them (i.e. keeping them from being grabbed by an enemy or hysterical bystander) in close quarters, but when they actually need to take a shot, they are taught to extend their arms outward to full length, so really you end up with your gun out there just as much as with one hand, as far as retention is concerned.
Now, as for actualy accuracy, the two handed "instinctive shooting" style has suposedly been found to reduce trembling due to stress and the fact that in combat, you are probably breathing hard, etc. Also, it places the weapon right in front of your eyes, to you have a straight and simple aim point, and many times this stance is taught with the idea that you aim *over* the sights of the weapon, focusing on the target more than on the sight picture.
Finally, it is better because you don't turn you body to one side, but stand with your legs shoulder width apart, knees flexed, and shoulders slightly "hunched," all of this is also suppossed to decrease the effects of trembling and improve balance. This type of shooting has only been developed since the late 70s and early 80s, and even then only SWAT/HRT style operatives used it. Only in the last few years has the standard GI been taught to shoot like this.
As far as WWII is concerned, I agree with the people that say that a soldier will not really shoot far outside how he was taught: training makes people revert back on what they learned through repetition, in combat this repetition is all that a solider has. Also, I disagree with the people that think soldier's would have adopted two-handed, Weaver style stances instinctively because it is "better." Why do you ask? Well consider a modern conflict:
In Iraq, I have seen tons of pictures lately of guys running around holding their M16s with their supporting hand on the *magazine well*, yes you heard me, the friggin magazine well.
Now why is this bad? For one, a full length rifle like the A2 or A3 is *always* going to shoot better by holding it properly with the supporting hand on the forearm--they are are not SMGs or MPs where you are supposed to hold them around the magazine. This throws off you center of balance on the weapon, causing your barrel to "droop" more, and it is a lot easier for someone to grab the end of the rifle and pull the weapon away from you (once again the idea of weapon's retention).
However, the biggest thing that hits me when I see those pictues, is the idea that those guys are all two secons away from having their magazines drop out. If anyone has held an M16 (I own a CAR 15 myself), then you know that the mag release catch is right there on the side of the well. Basically, if you wrap your hand around the well likes its a grip, you are just asking for your fingers or palm (depending on if you are left or right handed) to hit hte mag release---this is ieven more likely if you have a tight grip under anxiety.
In summation, that is about the WORST way you can carry an M16 in a combat environment, but you see soldiers doing it all over TV and in pictures. So, do men really do what is "better" or more accurate? No. But, do they do what they were trained by some yokel DI or what "looks sexy," yes they do, apparently.
Both the Russians and the Germans were taught to shoot pistols one handed, arm stretched out looking over the shoulder. This is according to all pictures I've seen of Germans shooting their pistols (mostly officers and NCO's plinking for a propoganda shoot) and a translated copy of the Russian TT-33/Nagant manual.
All that aside pistols aren't really a serious military weapon and were only issued as either a status item (ie officers) or a secondary weapon (machine gunners) regular soldiers did not carry them.
As already mentioned, if you were pulling out your pistol on the East Front, you were in big trouble!
All that aside pistols aren't really a serious military weapon and were only issued as either a status item (ie officers) or a secondary weapon (machine gunners) regular soldiers did not carry them.
As already mentioned, if you were pulling out your pistol on the East Front, you were in big trouble!
What I find funny is that you talk about all soldiers having a pistol, the Luger was a rarity and only officers and crews having them, that is why they were a prize weapon. Even MG crews the ammo carriers were issued rifles not lugers.
So in a Company of 140-160 Men there would be only maximum of 4-8 lugers, one for each officer of the platoon the company commander and possible a very senior nco.
I am not sure on the russian side but I imagine this to be a similar deal. Games where everyone has a backup weapon is very incorrect. Normally your backup weapon was your dagger,spade or helmet.
So in a Company of 140-160 Men there would be only maximum of 4-8 lugers, one for each officer of the platoon the company commander and possible a very senior nco.
I am not sure on the russian side but I imagine this to be a similar deal. Games where everyone has a backup weapon is very incorrect. Normally your backup weapon was your dagger,spade or helmet.
Yeah excellent point ViViD. This is the case today as well, as not all troops are equipped with sidearms, only officers and most vehicle and crew-served weapon's operators. Of coures, as what happens in RO matches, people tend to "aquire" sidearms through a variety of means in combat!
ViViD said:
Thats not entirely correct, at least on the German side. The Germans issued the most handguns of all the combatants. In a squad the machine gunner was also issued a pistol.
No idea on the Russian side, pictures of soldiers equiped with pistols are not that common. But here is a 1950's training manual that shows shooting stances:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110094
Jack said:
Which I think is a great thing! I for one will always go for a dropped pistol....a lot of the time Ive done it at great risk. It's always useful to have as a backup weapon, and If Im going to be moving into a building, I will pull a pistol knowing full well that at that range, the faster rate of fire will probably give me an advantage over anyone I encounter*
I think RO has hit the nail on the head here. Pistols are not particularly better than your primary weapon, but they are very useful to have around. As such, people will try and scavenge them from the battlefield, much like, I imagine, real life.
*Im speaking, of course, as a rifleman. I rarely play with automatics, but If I do, I have less need for a pistol.